Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 452 March 18, 1905

In the matter of JOSE ROBLES LAHESA

Jose Maria Marcaida for Jose Robles Lahesa.

CARSON, J.:

Jose Robles Lahesa, a lawyer practicing before this court, was duly
appointed counsel for the appellants in the case of the United States
vs. Julian Tulagan et al. on February 5, 1904, and on February 12,
1905, the Solicitor-General gave notice of motion to dismiss the
appeal in said case on the ground of abandonment and failure to
prosecute the same. The said Lahesa was also appointed counsel for
the appellant in the case of the United States vs. Julio Liuag, on the
12th of August, 1904, and on February 11, 1905, this court, on its
own motion, issued a rule to the said Lahesa to show cause why the
appeal in that case should not be dismissed on like grounds, and
further, to show cause, if any he had, why this court should not
impose disciplinary punishment for grave neglect in the
performance of his duty as a lawyer and officer of this court.

Said motion and rule came on for hearing Monday, February 20,
1905, when Jose Maria Marcaida appeared on behalf of said Lahesa,
and said he had been instructed by said Lahesa to inform the court
that he could not appear personally in response to its rule, because
he found it necessary to go elsewhere on the day and at the hour
fixed for the hearing, that he had no ground on which to oppose the
dismissal of the appeals in said cases, and further, that he had
taken no action in the said cases because, in his opinion, "there was
no defense to be made on behalf of any of the defendants for whom
he had been assigned as counsel."

An examination of the record in the case of the United States vs.

Julian Tulagan et al. shows that the appellants were sentenced in
the trial court to long terms of imprisonment for the crime of robo
en cuadrilla, from which sentence they appealed, and it appearing
that they were too poor to employ a lawyer, this court, in
accordance with the law provided in such cases, assigned the said
Lahesa as counsel de oficio, yet the said Lahesa has utterly failed to
take any action whatever in behalf of the defendants in said case,
though more than a year has elapsed since the date of said
assignment. An examination of the record in the case of the United
States vs. Julio Liuag shows that the defendant was sentenced to
seventeen years and four months' imprisonment for the crime of
homicide, from which sentence he appealed, and it appearing the
he was too poor to employ a lawyer, this court assigned the said
Lahesa as counsel de oficio, yet the said Lahesa has utterly failed to
take any action whatever on behalf of the defendant in that case,
though more than six months have elapsed since the date of his
assignment.

Upon this statement of facts it can not be doubted that the said Jose
Robles Lahesa has been guilty of grave negligence in the
performance of his duties as counsel, and as an officer of the court.

This court should exact from its officers and subordinates the most
scrupulous performance of their official duties, especially when
negligence in the performance of those duties necessarily results in
delays in the prosecution of criminal cases and the detention of
accused persons pending appeal. We are of opinion, therefore, that
a fine of 200 pesos, Philippine currency, should be imposed upon
the said Jose Robles Lahesa, said fine to be paid to the clerk of this
court within ten days of receipt of notice of this order. So ordered.